Hello I am interested!

So is it like, for answer choice B even though you are better able to preserve the habitats they're still dying at higher rates than ever before so you still failed in every possible way. You can better preserve the habits all you want, but your goal was to save animals even just a little bit in order to qualify as not totally failing. So we need an answer choice that proves, even in the most minuscule tiny way that some animal was saved. And if we saved one animal or saved an animal that would have otherwise been extinct then you cannot say its a total failure.

I think it has to do with the relative directional relationship and the mechanism of the glacier. No matter what we know the rock stopped moving and when it stopped moving the glacier was on its way south according to the stimulus.

How could the boulder be launched from the south? How would the rock be launched? Another glacier? It is a much bigger assumption jump and we are just asked to weaken what we currently have facts for.

Hi I'd like to join if possible!

I'd like to join!

I'd like to join!

To help myself identify the premise vs the conclusion I ask myself "What supports what"? The premise will do the supporting whereas the conclusion will be supported. Hope this can help you!

I get what you mean. The whole super set thing confused my knowledge of sufficient and necessary relationship, but I think the previous section is more about visualizing what is going on abstractly? Idk for the supersets I was confused